fayfreethinkers.com

OK folks, so here is the update to my previous concern that Hillary might try to steal the election if she can't win it fair and square. Previously, this kind of talk was just coming from her campaign. Well, she is on the record now:

Mrs. Clinton, in an appearance before a Hispanic business group in Washington Wednesday morning, argued that the delegates should be seated based on the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries, which were held in January in violation of Democratic Party rules.....“The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored,” she told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here.

Did you get that? She thinks it was fair. UNBELIEVABLE. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan, he took his name off with most other Democrats in an effort to play by the rules. Silly stupid bastard must have though Hillary was in some way less capable of stealing an election than the GOP was in 2000.

Granted Obama has yet to provide a viable alternative. Hillary is just shameless. Come on now, is anyone, clearly thinking...freethinking even, for the sake of fairness, think that this is not a shameless move by Hillary. She just confirms and confirms and confirms the hatred of a former Hillary fan with this. Yep, that Obama vote I cast looks better every day.

Two fair ways to deal with Michigan and Florida:
1. Don't change the rules in midgame. Both State's Party officials knew the consequences of their actions, and they should be held accountable for their actions (including disenfranchising thousands of voters).
2. Hold a do-over, exactly as they would have done their elections had they not been punished, giving both candidates equal chance to campaign.

Anything else is unacceptable, unfair, anti-democratic, and shameless.
Oh I'm gonna burst. If Hillary gets her way and steals this thing, she deserves to burn! And I'll gladly help provide fuel.

Amazing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/po ... es.html?hp

DAR
The rule was to not campaign in those states. If Hillary left her name on in MI and Obama took his off, then we have another example of she being smarter than he. They had to know people were going to come out and vote for them (why take the name off if it was not required?) And vote they did at almost double the number of the repub's. Let their votes count. These voters didn't make these stupid undemocratic rules. Seat them as they are or #2 is perfectly fine with me. #1 ain't gonna happen.

D.

Tony wrote:OK folks, so here is the update to my previous concern that Hillary might try to steal the election if she can't win it fair and square. Previously, this kind of talk was just coming from her campaign. Well, she is on the record now...

DOUG
She can't steal anything. She doesn't make the rules. She can SUGGEST anything she wants.

I don't see how she is doing anything wrong. What do you expect her to say? That she wants them to hold caucuses?

The rules say that superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. Obama says that the superdelegates should not decide the race. So is he "stealing" the election, on your view? He's doing exactly what Hillary is doing: suggesting a resolution that favors himself.

Dar wrote:

The rule was to not campaign in those states. If Hillary left her name on in MI and Obama took his off, then we have another example of she being smarter than he.

Cute but irrelevant. I will agree with you, however, that anyone who thinks Hillary is below doing whatever is necessary to win win win, is at best a bit naive. Further, I would also agree that Machiavellians are quite clever, as you must be to maintian the pious devotion of so many faithful disciples even when you pull this kind of crap.



Dar wrote:

Let their votes count. These voters didn't make these stupid undemocratic rules. Seat them as they are or #2 is perfectly fine with me. #1 ain't gonna happen.

Well we can agree on #2 as the best possible option. Here's hoping that is what does happen. Leaving things as is, is still better, I maintain, then anything other then option #2. Why? First because it is just wrong to change the rules like that in midgame, unless it is a totally fair process. We are all concerned that voters were disfranchised. Yet that was made very clear before this action was taken. The DNC even sent out letters to voters telling them that their vote was not going to count. No doubt, many did not. So counting the votes that did take place will also desenfranchise voters, as well as being inherently unfair. Option #2 is the best possible solution.

Doug wrote

She can't steal anything. She doesn't make the rules. She can SUGGEST anything she wants.

Quite right. I worry that since most of the Party Machine supports Hillary, they will bend to her will. Yet suggesting such an outcome, as she did, is loathesome. Calling it "fair" is total bullshit, and loathesome. Would you not agree?

Doug

don't see how she is doing anything wrong. What do you expect her to say? That she wants them to hold caucuses?

I guess you don't agree. Like Darrel says, I am quite the purist. I'm also a fairly naive idealist in that, despite my growing cynicism, I expect some level of common decency and fair play from my politicians. I expect my democracy to be, well, democratic. Silly, I know.

I expect her AND Obama, to support option #2 and failing that, option #1. Obama sucks for not coming right out with that. But until he says something equivalent, oh like say, "I should get all the votes, just because, that's fair", then I still maintain, Hillary sucks way worse.
They should only have caucuses if that is what they have always done, and planned to do.



Doug wrote:

The rules say that superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. Obama says that the superdelegates should not decide the race. So is he "stealing" the election, on your view? He's doing exactly what Hillary is doing: suggesting a resolution that favors himself.

Yes, those are the rules. Un-democratic rules left over from a very un-democratic process, and it needs to be changed. They did not finish the job post-1968.

So obviously, I hate the superdelegate rule. But there is an inherent difference between saying: "superdelegates should go with the will of the majority in good democratic fashion" and saying we should change the rules midgame completely and seat delegates from an election where one candidate was not even on the ballot. The first position does not substantially change the rules, and it is, and this is most important to me, far more democratic.

Like I said earlier, Obama just might suck as bad as Hillary before all is said and done. He's not there yet. Few suck as much as Hillary. I'll pounce on him too if he goes anti-democracy on us. Especially if he tries to pull a Hillary. If he comes out and says, for instance, that he should get a majority of FL and MI delegates, just because he is winning, I'll kick.

Do you guys seriously think I am totally out of bounds here? I really am missing how this doesn't just piss everyone off.

Dar wrote:
The rule was to not campaign in those states. If Hillary left her name on in MI and Obama took his off, then we have another example of she being smarter than he.

TONY
Cute but irrelevant.

DAR
No, being smarter is quite relevant. In retrospect, should Obama have had his name on that ballet? Yes. Then at least when she beat him it would keep you from using this excuse.

TONY
I will agree with you, however, that anyone who thinks Hillary is below doing whatever is necessary to win win win, is at best a bit naive.

DAR
Cute but irrelevant. If she goes against McCain, her job will be to win win win. That's a really important attribute BTW.

TONY
...the pious devotion of so many faithful disciples even when you pull this kind of crap.

DAR
Oh, that's what your post read like. As Doug pointed out, you imply that Obama can suggest a resolution that favors himself but when Hillary does the very same she is "stealing the election." Once again, you are blind to your own fanaticism so it's rather ironic for you to be throwing around charges of "pious devotion" and "faithful disciples."

TONY
Like I said earlier, Obama just might suck as bad as Hillary before all is said and done. He's not there yet.

DAR
That's a sure bet. Give him five minutes. If he gets in your are going to be sorely disappointed, in five minutes or less, because he will have to fall far from your ideal, which is unrealistically impossible.

TONY
Do you guys seriously think I am totally out of bounds here?

DAR
We really don't have an out of bounds here. But in the game of trying to hit Hillary with something, anything, you are up to form.

D.

Tony wrote: Doug wrote

She can't steal anything. She doesn't make the rules. She can SUGGEST anything she wants.

Quite right. I worry that since most of the Party Machine supports Hillary, they will bend to her will. Yet suggesting such an outcome, as she did, is loathesome. Calling it "fair" is total bullshit, and loathesome. Would you not agree?

DOUG
Which outcome? Seating the delegates? What do you think the Democrats of Florida and Michigan came out to vote for? A waste of time? Their hard work and dedication mean absolutely nothing? That seems loathsome to me.

Tony wrote:
Doug

don't see how she is doing anything wrong. What do you expect her to say? That she wants them to hold caucuses?

I guess you don't agree. Like Darrel says, I am quite the purist. I'm also a fairly naive idealist in that, despite my growing cynicism, I expect some level of common decency and fair play from my politicians. I expect my democracy to be, well, democratic. Silly, I know.

I have seen nothing from Hillary that is indecent or unfair. I have seen the press ravage her and distort her statements in a blatantly unfair way.

I don't see how counting votes to settle a close election is unfair. As Darrel said, Obama did not have to withdraw from the Michigan primary.

Tony wrote:
I expect her AND Obama, to support option #2 and failing that, option #1. Obama sucks for not coming right out with that. But until he says something equivalent, oh like say, "I should get all the votes, just because, that's fair", then I still maintain, Hillary sucks way worse.
They should only have caucuses if that is what they have always done, and planned to do.

I agree about the caucuses. Obama wants those because he usually wins at caucuses as opposed to primaries.

Tony wrote:
Doug wrote:

The rules say that superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. Obama says that the superdelegates should not decide the race. So is he "stealing" the election, on your view? He's doing exactly what Hillary is doing: suggesting a resolution that favors himself.

Yes, those are the rules. Un-democratic rules left over from a very un-democratic process, and it needs to be changed. They did not finish the job post-1968.

OK, so hate Hillary for asking that we follow the rules? Following the rules is hardly stealing an election. Stealing at the very least implies breaking the rules.

Tony wrote:
Do you guys seriously think I am totally out of bounds here? I really am missing how this doesn't just piss everyone off.

I think that like many liberals these days, you have bought into anti-Hillary hysteria. The Obama camp plays it up, and so does the GOP. And the media is heavily promoting this anti-Hillary hysteria too. If Hillary does get the nomination at this point, it will be a miracle because of all the institutions working against her.

Dar

Yes. Then at least when she beat him it would keep you from using this excuse.

Man, you really think I am just being partisan here. If they have a fair process, and Hillary wins, then she wins. I won't kick. She's not going to win by much in Michigan in any fair contest. Nor would she win by enough in FL to overcome the delegate lead Obama has, I'm pretty sure. But if she does, and it's fair, I'll not say a word. Well, I might express my disappointment, but fair is fair, and I really am aiming at that here. You are aware of how much a compromise Obama is for this purists.

Dar

Oh, that's what your post read like. As Doug pointed out, you imply that Obama can suggest a resolution that favors himself but when Hillary does the very same she is "stealing the election." Once again, you are blind to your own fanaticism so it's rather ironic for you to be throwing around charges of "pious devotion" and "faithful disciples."

Where is your sense of humor Darrel? Throwing around "pious devotion" and "faithful disciples" on a freethinker forum is funny if I do say so myself.
As for my own blind fanaticism, maybe, toward a fair democratic process...NOT to a particular candidate. Read my post again and you'll see that I did criticize Obama for not supporting my option #2. Now, it's ok if you have any criticizisms of Hillary. Any? Anything? Nothing at all? I mainatain that you are far more partisan than I.

Dar

But in the game of trying to hit Hillary with something, anything, you are up to form.

Again, you keep implying that I just want to hit Hillary. I told you before, I used to love Hillary. I didn't make this statement up. She is the one, all on her own, who came out and said 'the FL and MI non-vote was "fair", and I should get the delegates as is.' When I know that if all of us were to sit down and operate from a sort of Rawlsian veil of ignorance, NOBODY would even pretend that was fair. Hillary gives you things like this that should damage her....or anyone else who utters such things. And then, I'm being the one who is partisan?

Doug wrote:

Which outcome? Seating the delegates? What do you think the Democrats of Florida and Michigan came out to vote for? A waste of time? Their hard work and dedication mean absolutely nothing? That seems loathsome to me.

Yes the delegates from the non-election as is. Yes, they voted for absolutely nothing. In fact, they were told time and time and time again, that because of the actions of the State Party's, their votes were meaningless. Do you know what that can do to turnout for those paying attention? Who knows how many stayed home? Disfranchisement sucks, no doubt. But the Dems in FL and MI are solely responsible for that. That election was hugely flawed. It can't just count. Do over or nothing.


Doug

I think that like many liberals these days, you have bought into anti-Hillary hysteria. The Obama camp plays it up, and so does the GOP. And the media is heavily promoting this anti-Hillary hysteria too. If Hillary does get the nomination at this point, it will be a miracle because of all the institutions working against her.

How the hell did she, one of the most masterful politicians of any age, and buddy buddy with the centrist DLC, the most powerful faction in the DNC, who came out with all the money, and all the support, and all the expectations, turn into a victim? One reason. The voters got in the way. Democracy, or some semblence of it, has kicked the shit out of surefire expectations.

Tony wrote:How the hell did she, one of the most masterful politicians of any age, and buddy buddy with the centrist DLC, the most powerful faction in the DNC, who came out with all the money, and all the support, and all the expectations, turn into a victim? One reason. The voters got in the way. Democracy, or some semblence of it, has kicked the shit out of surefire expectations.

DOUG
The voters "got in the way" mostly because of the anti-Hillary hysteria that has been promoted by the GOP and mostly by the media. It is incredible how readily the press is to condemn something she does, or to "raise questions" about her activities and yet overlook the same actions from all the other candidates.

And the voters are in the way in Florida, aren't they? We need to have a do-over so perhaps Hillary can lose. Then they won't be in the way.

And until Mississippi and Wyoming, Hillary was ahead in the popular vote. So how were the voters getting in the way? They weren't. So is Obama stealing the election too?

Doug wrote:

And until Mississippi and Wyoming, Hillary was ahead in the popular vote. So how were the voters getting in the way? They weren't. So is Obama stealing the election too?

You didn't get that from some Hillary campaign literature did you? What's your source. I have been under the assumption that Obama has been in the lead both delegates and popular vote for quite a while.

Oh I see where you got it, it was from the Hillary 'win at all costs' toolbox. See the Huffington Post:

Hillary Has Narrow 30,657 Lead in Popular Vote. Got your attention.

Everyone is saying that Obama has the lead in the delegates and in the popular vote, but that is not exactly true as far as the votes are concerned, according to Clinton supporters. The figures from NBC are:

Including Florida And Michigan, Clinton wins by 30,657:
Clinton 13,521,832
Obama 13,497,175

In the Approved Contests Obama wins by 598,266:
Obama 12,920,961
Clinton 12,322,695

With Florida, where both were on the ballot, Obama wins by 303,494
Obama 13,497,175
Clinton 13,193,681

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fle ... 90318.html

Man, that don't count. Since Obama did not get ANY votes in Michigan (Hillary ran against 'other') That is the only possible way she would be in the lead with popular votes. And since no, Hillary supporters, she has not had the rules changed to her shameless advantage as of yet, she is not in fact, in the lead with popular votes, nor has she been in quite a while. Check your non-Hillary sources. If there is anything resembling a fair do over in Michigan, Obama will still have more votes than Hillary by any possible democratic criteria you can come up with.

Please do note, Obama is actually winning by more than half a million votes. Same Margin Gore won by when he lost to Bush in 2000. Barring such shenanigans this time around, Obama IS and WILL trounce Hillary....democratically.

Oh yeah Doug, I forgot to mention that the tally I cited, that I'm assuming you based your erroneous assertion on, was indeed from before the Wyoming and Mississippi primaries, both of which Obama won, so his popular vote lead is actually closer to 600,000 now.

Tony wrote:...anything resembling a fair do over in Michigan,...

DAR
She already won Florida fair and square, no need to do that over. Dumb dumb took his name off in Michigan. You snooze you loose. She's won almost all the big states and a nice landslide in the rather important Ohio. And yet some people still want to deny her the ribbon? Obama should be happy if she offers him the VP spot.

D.

Tony wrote:Doug wrote:

Oh I see where you got it, it was from the Hillary 'win at all costs' toolbox.

DOUG
Oh, as opposed to simple math, which gives us the same result and shows I was correct. Popular vote = the most people voting for that person.

But it feels so much better to throw in a dig at Hillary.

And you don't think you have anti-Hillary hysteria?

Obama's "win at all cost" strategy was to have the winner be whoever got the most popular votes. Now his "win at all costs" strategy is to say that the winner should be the one with the most delegates.

Doug and Darrel,
So the jabbing and combative rhetoric is fun, but I cannot understand how we cannot agree on this. On what is and is not fair. So, I'm gonna leave out all combative rhetoric in one last sincere effort to clarify this conundrum:

First, the DNC is the governing body of the Democratic Party. It makes the rules. It has the power to stip State Party's of delegates if they violate Party rules. The DNC has done that. As of now, the election is what the DNC says it is. It's not what you want, It's not what I want. It is, all states count except Florida and Michigan. Thus, in the accepted election, the valid election, it is false to say that Hillary is leading in either the popular or the delegate count.

Fact #1: Obama leads Hillary by more than 100 delegates, over 600,000 total votes and has won more states.

Darrel has said he does not understand what the fighting over rules are. This is confusing, so maybe that is the source of much of our disagreement.

Prior to 1968, Party nominations were conducted by delegates who, though they were awarded by popular vote, were not committed to those candidates. Democracy was a mere suggestion, and the real decision as to who would be the candidate was done at the Convention by the bosses, bribing, influencing, cajoling, and cutting deals. This anti-democratic process blew up in 1968. Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, the two prominent anti-war candidates were doing very well in the voting. So well, that Lyndon Johnson decided to not even run again, in an effort to save the Party, and because he was sure he would lose. Hubert Humphrey ran as the pro-war candidate. Bobby Kennedy has his campaign ended by bullets. At the Convention, it was clear that a majority of the voters had supported an anti-war position. But the Party machinery feared putting up an anti-war candidate. A huge convention fight began. Anti-Vietnam War protestors showed up in Chicago in huge numbers. A reactionary Chicago police were determined to put the screws to demonstrators. The result was a fiasco. Protestors and cops battled each other in the streets. Fights broke out on the convention floor. Terrible stuff. And in the end, the Party gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, the pro war candidate.
After this mess, they decided to reform so that delegates who were voted for were pledged to their candidate. But they kept part of the old system, what we know as superdelegates, as a nod to the undemocratic past, and to ensure that the Party leadership would decide in a tight race. This was intentionally undemocratic. It is wrong, I maintain, and should be changed, NOT so my guy can win, but because it is unfair and undemocratic....but that is another discussion.

Now, with Florida and Michigan. Until this election, all of them since 1968 have been over by the time super tuesday rolls around. Iowa and New Hampshire weeded that candidates out, super tuesday sealed the deal. So, many States, tired of not counting in a significant manner, began moving up the dates of their primaries. Super Tuesday became super duper tuesday, with many, many more states participating.
Democratic Party rules said that no State could move up to before Super Tuesday. Michigan and Florida wanted to. The reason for this is, if they allowed that to happen, super Tuesday States would then want to push their primaries back further as well. Iowa and New Hampshire, long the first States to vote, vowed to do whatever to maintain their tradtional status as first States to vote. We could then have anarchy in the system, pushing the voting back so early that the long and costly campaign could go on forever.

The DNC warned MI and FL that they were violating Party rules, and that if they did not obey, they would be stripped of their delegates. MI and FL went ahead anyway. The DNC warned them, begged them, tried to put pressure on them with the voters in the States, by telling them, repeatedly, that if their State Party violated the rules, then their vote would not count in the election. MI and FL Dems did it anyway. So, before the elections began, FL and MI WERE stripped of their delegates. Everyone was told they would not count, and so as of now, they do not count. All the Candidates agreed. They signed on with the DNC and acknowledged that MI and FL would not count and all pledged to not campaign there. In a move to show solidarity and put pressure on MI to adhere to the rules, all the candidates except Hillary removed their names from the ballot. Darrel says this was stupid. But it was simply fair play.

Now, it appears in a close election, those delegates will be needed for there to be a winner declared. Hillary, who agreed with the DNC before this all began, and some of her Campaign managers, notably Ickes, who voted to strip MI and FL of their delegates, are now saying that FL and MI should count, not in any interest of fairness I argue, but because that is the ONLY way Hillary can win this election.

You are both sympathetic to this position, which I just don't understand. How can you justify changing the rules in midgame? The only way you can say, as you do, that Hillary is winning the popular vote, is by including MI where Obama was not even on the ballot. This is simply not fair. How can one be punished for following the rules laid out by the only authority that can make those rules, the DNC?

Seating MI and FL as they are, would be unfair because:
1. It would be changing the rules in midgame.
2. It would reward MI and FL for violating the rules.
3. It would not be an accurate indicator of the will of the people of MI or FL.
4. It would disfranchise people who did not vote because they were told that their vote would not count.

We all agree that a do over would be fair. Anything other than that, except keeping it as is, would be unfair I maintain.

How is it possible that you disagree with this most sane and understandable position. Is it just your pro-Hillary bias? What am I missing?

Tony wrote: How can you justify changing the rules in midgame?

DAR
Times change, new circumstances arise. No one thought these states would be need to be decisive. Turns out they are. Fortunately, millions of people turned up to vote, and most of them voted for her.

The only way you can say, as you do, that Hillary is winning the popular vote, is by including MI where Obama was not even on the ballot.

DAR
Why was he not on the ballot? Was it a rule to not be on the ballot? No. Maybe if he had more experience in politics, like Hillary, he wouldn't make such mistakes.

This is simply not fair. How can one be punished for following the rules laid out by the only authority that can make those rules, the DNC?

DAR
It was not a rule to not be on the ballot. He obviously made a blunder. He's a little green.

Seating MI and FL as they are, would be unfair because:
1. It would be changing the rules in midgame.

DAR
Circumstances change. Make a new rule that says it is undemocratic and illegal to dis-infranchise millions of voters and thus nullify the first illegal rule.

2. It would reward MI and FL for violating the rules.

DAR
Don't care.

3. It would not be an accurate indicator of the will of the people of MI or FL.

DAR
Why not? The playing field was level. Both sides were told the same thing, both sides did not campaign. Hillary won.

4. It would disfranchise people who did not vote because they were told that their vote would not count.

DAR
Too bad, they could have voted like the others did but chose not to.

...some of her Campaign managers,... are now saying that FL and MI should count, not in any interest of fairness I argue, but because that is the ONLY way Hillary can win this election.

DAR
No it isn't. They could do it over and she could beat him again. But why bother? They already voted and she won. Let their votes count.

D.

Tony wrote:Fact #1: Obama leads Hillary by more than 100 delegates, over 600,000 total votes and has won more states.

DOUG
Where is fact #2?

(Note: Hillary has won almost all the large states, except Illinois.)

Tony, if Hillary wins Pennsylvania and ends up with more popular votes, will you concede that she should get the nomination?

Tony wrote:The DNC warned MI and FL that they were violating Party rules, and that if they did not obey, they would be stripped of their delegates. MI and FL went ahead anyway. The DNC warned them, begged them, tried to put pressure on them with the voters in the States, by telling them, repeatedly, that if their State Party violated the rules, then their vote would not count in the election. MI and FL Dems did it anyway. So, before the elections began, FL and MI WERE stripped of their delegates.

DOUG
The Republican-controlled legislature in Florida, at the urging of Republican governor Crist, passed a law that moved both its primaries to January. The Florida Democrats had no choice about when their primary was held. See here.

So the Florida voters should be punished, and their votes should not count, due to circumstances beyond their control?

Doug

Where is fact #2?

(Note: Hillary has won almost all the large states, except Illinois.)

I don't know where or what fact #2 was. That's what I get for writing when its late and I'm exhausted.

Hillary has won all the big States except Illinois, true. But this is a national election, and in the fair, democratic elections, nationawide, Obama is up over 100 delegates and over 600,000 votes.

Tony, if Hillary wins Pennsylvania and ends up with more popular votes, will you concede that she should get the nomination?

Well, I would prefer the nomination went to the person with the most votes. But the rules are by delegates. In the Dem process its proportional though, so it is pretty close to what they get popularly. But yeah, I'm not being partisan, I'm ranting in the interest of a fair democratic process. If Hillary wins the popular vote (thus she will get the delegate vote) then yes, she should win the election.

She will probably win Penn. but it won't be by enough to overturn Obama's national lead, unless she wins huge, which I don't think will happen. I do think there should be a do over in MI and FL, and whoever wins wins. I'll be unhappy if it is Hillary, but if she wins fair and square, so be it. Yay democracy.
But it is simply unfair to change the rules in midgame to the benefit of one candidate over another. Let em replay MI and FL, if Obama loses, he loses. At least it will not be undemocratically, by changing the rules. THAT is what I am concerned with. It has nothing to do with my dislike for Hillary.

Doug

The Republican-controlled legislature in Florida, at the urging of Republican governor Crist, passed a law that moved both its primaries to January. The Florida Democrats had no choice about when their primary was held. See here.

So the Florida voters should be punished, and their votes should not count, due to circumstances beyond their control?

Florida, obviously, is a constant mess. The GOP of course, sucks. They loved the idea of screwing the Dems on this. But the DNC position was completely understandable. Their concerns were valid. The FL Democratic Party did not have to go along. That issue was over holding open primaries of both parties at the same time, if I recall correctly. Thd FL Dems did not have to go along with it. That is why the DNC sent flyers directly to voters, thinking that would put pressure on the FL Party to not go along and break the rules.

I'll concede FL is in a bit of a different situation than MI. But it should still be a do over.

You did see that even with those FL results that I think are unfair, Obama would still be up over 300,000 and in delegates right? Irrelevant, to our discussion, but I did want to point that out.

Yeah man. I'm arguing for a fair democratic process here, not just for or against any single candidate.

DOUG
Here's an idea being floated around. Nothing final yet.

===========
Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.
–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.
===============

Tony wrote:Yeah man. I'm arguing for a fair democratic process here, not just for or against any single candidate.

DOUG
I hope so. But when following the rules is considered "stealing," be careful that you don't get carried away.